In traditional supply chains, material trickles downstream sequentially while data moves back upstream sequentially. A supply chain may include multiple enterprises that need to communicate and to cooperate to insure that goods and/or services are moved from suppliers to consumers in a timely, efficient manner. A supply chain may include, for example, buyers and sellers, which may also be referred to as purchasers and suppliers. A supply chain may include, for example, members that demand a quantity of a product and members that supply product.
Conventionally, supply chain data is stored in a series of individually owned, controlled and/or designed databases, where data concerning issues like predictions of supply and demand may age rapidly and thus lose relevance and/or validity. An enterprise may be a member of many supply chains. For example, a widget producer may ship widgets to a variety of sources including widget assemblers, widget customizers, widget testers, widget wholesalers, widget retailers and widget consumers. Furthermore, a widget may arrive at its ultimate destination via multiple supply chains. For example, a first widget consumer may receive a widget directly from a widget producer, a second widget consumer may receive a widget via a widget retailer who received it from a widget wholesaler, and a third widget consumer may receive a widget via a widget customizer and widget tester. Each point in a different supply chain may employ different forms, data and/or customs to achieve delivery and facilitate record keeping. Thus, one widget supplier may have to maintain multiple supply chain protocols, forms and/or records to communicate with members of the various supply chains of which it is a member. This increases complexity and thus reduces efficiency in supply chain operations. As contract manufacturing, dedicated suppliers and vendor managed inventories increase, such problems are exacerbated due to the expanding network of enterprises included in a supply chain.
Conventionally, supply chain members deployed inventory between facilities based on projections concerning supply and demand. Such projections may be based on models that account for a number of factors like historical demand, historical supply, phoned in updates and inventory manager intuition. However, such projections become stale as soon as they are issued since they do not rely on the actual inventory, supply and/or demand situation. The projections grow increasingly more stale as a reporting period progresses. For example, a report generated for a one month long reporting cycle may initially be acceptable. However, changing conditions in the field (e.g., warehouse fire, run on supply at a location, work action slowdown) may make the report unacceptably inaccurate. Typically, there were limited, if any, means to adapt inventory distributions within a reporting cycle.
Some companies may have employed vendor managed inventory programs where a buyer would agree to buy a certain contractual quantity of a product over a period of time (so that the supplier can predict demand) or the supplier would agree to maintain minimum stocking levels at a site (so that consumers have an adequate supply) whereby the supplier replenished as needed. Using this vendor managed inventory program, safety stock levels may have been maintained at too high a level, which increased overhead, reduced profits and lead to spoilage. Furthermore, there may be a delay between inventory level monitoring and replenishment, which can lead to over and/or under inventory positions.
Conventionally, an enterprise may be a member of many supply chains. For example, a widget producer may ship such widgets to a variety of sources including widget assemblers, widget customizers, widget testers, widget wholesalers, widget retailers and widget consumers. Furthermore, a widget may arrive at its ultimate destination via multiple supply chains. For example, a first widget consumer may receive a widget directly from a widget producer, a second widget consumer may receive a widget via a widget retailer who received it from a widget wholesaler, and a third widget consumer may receive a widget via a widget customizer and widget tester. Each point in a different supply chain may employ different forms, data and/or customs to achieve delivery and facilitate record keeping. Thus, one widget supplier may have to maintain multiple supply chain protocols, forms and/or records to communicate with members of the various supply chains of which it is a member. This increases complexity and thus reduces efficiency in supply chain operations. As contract manufacturing, dedicated suppliers and vendor managed inventories increase, such problems are exacerbated due to the expanding network of enterprises included in a supply chain.
Supply chains may be more complicated than a one supplier to one consumer relationship. For example, a product delivered to a consumer may depend on multiple suppliers. By way of illustration, a desktop computer product may depend on a main console supplier, a monitor supplier and a printer supplier. Conventionally, it has been very difficult to integrate monitoring the inventory and/or delivery of each of the component parts of the product because it has been difficult, if possible at all, for the related suppliers to view related inventory and/or order information, for example.
Conventionally, each member of a supply chain keeps individual records concerning its enterprise. By way of illustration, a supply chain member may keep records concerning items including, but not limited to, predicted demand, predicted supply, purchase orders sent, purchase orders received, inventory, sales orders sent, sales orders received, warehouse orders, shipments, and the like. Such records may be stored in one or more individually owned, controlled and/or designed databases and may be stored in inconsistent formats. Typically, supply chain members do not open their databases to access from other supply chain members. Thus, to communicate with other supply chain members it has been customary to exchange EDI data and/or paper printouts. Producing, shipping and interpreting both EDI and paper printouts introduce delays and potential points of confusion into supply chain processing. Furthermore, EDI and/or paper employed in one supply chain may not be interchangeable with other supply chains, creating additional complexity in supply chain data processing. Such individually owned, controlled and/or designed databases and their associated independent aging are a roadblock to performing continuous flow execution of matching supply to demand.